|
United States5162 Posts
On April 28 2012 04:59 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 04:55 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:32 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:24 Myles wrote:
What's the difference between this and sport fishing? The catch and release policy? If you're catching it to eat it, cool, if you're catching it to sell to be eaten, cool, if you're catching it so that you can just kill it, that should strike you as something weird. Does it matter that they're a fish, I mean wouldn't it be weird if you went out and caught a squirrel just so you could kill it? If you're alluding to the fact that people actually do practice catching various animals for the explicit purpose of killing them for the sake of killing them, yes, I'm aware that happens, and yes, it's kind of a fucked up practice. I generally lean more towards the "You could also just not kill it" club in that regard. You know, kind of like pest control services who have been becoming increasingly more humane in their removal of pests, always trying to opt to remove problems without violence because you can.. I'm also not trying to state that this guy is some kind of serial fish killer, I'm just explaining that in this specific scenario this is why he was arrested or whatever. It would have been the same result if he had a show where he caught a squirrel and bit it's head off. In fact if it was a squirrel I think the only two sides would be, That's really fucked up and He should go to jail. People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act. My point is that when you catch a fish you cause it way more pain then when you 'eat it alive'. Catching a fish entails putting a hook through it's mouth(or guts if they swallow it) and then either cutting its head off or letting it slowly suffocate. Why you do this seems irreverent to me as you should be killing things as humanely as possible regardless of why you do it. And by eating the fish in the manner he did he instantly killed it as soon as he bite down. There is literally no more humane way to kill a fish despite whatever reason he did it for. Right, so was I not clear enough in my previous posts or? .. I mean, I thought "it's not how he killed it, it's why" was a clear enough message, so ending a post trying to refute that with "despite whatever reason he did it for" seems like not so great of a response given that I've already acknowledge (3 times now going on 4!) that it's not the fact that he did it, or how he did it, it's why he did it that matters here. I even explicitly stated in the post you just quoted, "People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act."
You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say.
What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food.
|
On April 28 2012 05:03 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 04:59 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:55 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:32 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:24 Myles wrote:
What's the difference between this and sport fishing? The catch and release policy? If you're catching it to eat it, cool, if you're catching it to sell to be eaten, cool, if you're catching it so that you can just kill it, that should strike you as something weird. Does it matter that they're a fish, I mean wouldn't it be weird if you went out and caught a squirrel just so you could kill it? If you're alluding to the fact that people actually do practice catching various animals for the explicit purpose of killing them for the sake of killing them, yes, I'm aware that happens, and yes, it's kind of a fucked up practice. I generally lean more towards the "You could also just not kill it" club in that regard. You know, kind of like pest control services who have been becoming increasingly more humane in their removal of pests, always trying to opt to remove problems without violence because you can.. I'm also not trying to state that this guy is some kind of serial fish killer, I'm just explaining that in this specific scenario this is why he was arrested or whatever. It would have been the same result if he had a show where he caught a squirrel and bit it's head off. In fact if it was a squirrel I think the only two sides would be, That's really fucked up and He should go to jail. People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act. My point is that when you catch a fish you cause it way more pain then when you 'eat it alive'. Catching a fish entails putting a hook through it's mouth(or guts if they swallow it) and then either cutting its head off or letting it slowly suffocate. Why you do this seems irreverent to me as you should be killing things as humanely as possible regardless of why you do it. And by eating the fish in the manner he did he instantly killed it as soon as he bite down. There is literally no more humane way to kill a fish despite whatever reason he did it for. Right, so was I not clear enough in my previous posts or? .. I mean, I thought "it's not how he killed it, it's why" was a clear enough message, so ending a post trying to refute that with "despite whatever reason he did it for" seems like not so great of a response given that I've already acknowledge (3 times now going on 4!) that it's not the fact that he did it, or how he did it, it's why he did it that matters here. I even explicitly stated in the post you just quoted, "People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act." You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say. What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food.
You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause.
I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat.
|
Going to jail for eating a live goldfish is utter bullshit. It should be illegal to go fishing then.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 28 2012 05:10 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 05:03 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:59 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:55 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:32 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:24 Myles wrote:
What's the difference between this and sport fishing? The catch and release policy? If you're catching it to eat it, cool, if you're catching it to sell to be eaten, cool, if you're catching it so that you can just kill it, that should strike you as something weird. Does it matter that they're a fish, I mean wouldn't it be weird if you went out and caught a squirrel just so you could kill it? If you're alluding to the fact that people actually do practice catching various animals for the explicit purpose of killing them for the sake of killing them, yes, I'm aware that happens, and yes, it's kind of a fucked up practice. I generally lean more towards the "You could also just not kill it" club in that regard. You know, kind of like pest control services who have been becoming increasingly more humane in their removal of pests, always trying to opt to remove problems without violence because you can.. I'm also not trying to state that this guy is some kind of serial fish killer, I'm just explaining that in this specific scenario this is why he was arrested or whatever. It would have been the same result if he had a show where he caught a squirrel and bit it's head off. In fact if it was a squirrel I think the only two sides would be, That's really fucked up and He should go to jail. People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act. My point is that when you catch a fish you cause it way more pain then when you 'eat it alive'. Catching a fish entails putting a hook through it's mouth(or guts if they swallow it) and then either cutting its head off or letting it slowly suffocate. Why you do this seems irreverent to me as you should be killing things as humanely as possible regardless of why you do it. And by eating the fish in the manner he did he instantly killed it as soon as he bite down. There is literally no more humane way to kill a fish despite whatever reason he did it for. Right, so was I not clear enough in my previous posts or? .. I mean, I thought "it's not how he killed it, it's why" was a clear enough message, so ending a post trying to refute that with "despite whatever reason he did it for" seems like not so great of a response given that I've already acknowledge (3 times now going on 4!) that it's not the fact that he did it, or how he did it, it's why he did it that matters here. I even explicitly stated in the post you just quoted, "People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act." You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say. What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food. You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause. I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat.
Eh, I'm not so sure many fisherman care about the well being of the fish they catch. Though, I will agree that they don't do it so they can kill the fish(usually, but there is stuff like shark fishing). And there are tons of commercial fisherman who make a lot of money by causing fish lots of pain. I guess in the end its a philosophical difference on the ends vs the means.
|
On April 28 2012 05:20 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 05:10 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 05:03 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:59 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:55 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:32 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:24 Myles wrote:
What's the difference between this and sport fishing? The catch and release policy? If you're catching it to eat it, cool, if you're catching it to sell to be eaten, cool, if you're catching it so that you can just kill it, that should strike you as something weird. Does it matter that they're a fish, I mean wouldn't it be weird if you went out and caught a squirrel just so you could kill it? If you're alluding to the fact that people actually do practice catching various animals for the explicit purpose of killing them for the sake of killing them, yes, I'm aware that happens, and yes, it's kind of a fucked up practice. I generally lean more towards the "You could also just not kill it" club in that regard. You know, kind of like pest control services who have been becoming increasingly more humane in their removal of pests, always trying to opt to remove problems without violence because you can.. I'm also not trying to state that this guy is some kind of serial fish killer, I'm just explaining that in this specific scenario this is why he was arrested or whatever. It would have been the same result if he had a show where he caught a squirrel and bit it's head off. In fact if it was a squirrel I think the only two sides would be, That's really fucked up and He should go to jail. People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act. My point is that when you catch a fish you cause it way more pain then when you 'eat it alive'. Catching a fish entails putting a hook through it's mouth(or guts if they swallow it) and then either cutting its head off or letting it slowly suffocate. Why you do this seems irreverent to me as you should be killing things as humanely as possible regardless of why you do it. And by eating the fish in the manner he did he instantly killed it as soon as he bite down. There is literally no more humane way to kill a fish despite whatever reason he did it for. Right, so was I not clear enough in my previous posts or? .. I mean, I thought "it's not how he killed it, it's why" was a clear enough message, so ending a post trying to refute that with "despite whatever reason he did it for" seems like not so great of a response given that I've already acknowledge (3 times now going on 4!) that it's not the fact that he did it, or how he did it, it's why he did it that matters here. I even explicitly stated in the post you just quoted, "People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act." You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say. What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food. You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause. I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat. Eh, I'm not so sure many fisherman care about the well being of the fish they catch. Though, I will agree that they don't do it so they can kill the fish(usually, but there is stuff like shark fishing). And there are tons of commercial fisherman who make a lot of money by causing fish lots of pain. I guess in the end its a philosophical difference on the ends vs the means.
I'm talking about recreational fishers. People who aren't recreational fishing are fishing for profit in some way. But this is fairly irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.
This topic is about whether it is alright to publicly kill something for entertainment. When I say entertainment I'm speaking about a crowd and money being involved. I didn't get to see his viewing numbers but I assume he crossed the threshold (which is surprisingly little) in which he was making a profit. People were misinterpreting what I meant by entertainment previously, taking it to mean entertainment for himself, which isn't the case. If he took any joy in what he did he's likely disturbed anyways.
|
freedom and animal rights don't mix. he lives in an unfree society
|
On April 27 2012 18:31 EngrishTeacher wrote:
LOL.
80% of the Chinese population should be jailed then.
What a total joke, certain groups of people need to get the sand out of their v****as.
Is it surprising AT ALL that the UK is rolling downhill faster and faster day by day?
Not sure if trolling or just stupid.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
I was at a boy scout camp as a kid the first time I went fishing. I hooked one and my group leader took it, placed it in a plastic bag, and repeatedly whacked it against a wooden fence. I never went fishing again after that. This is mercy compared haha.
I don't even know why people bother trying to ruin someone's life over something so silly...
|
|
|
I understand why people argue both sides, but you have to understand... there are cultures out there that eat live animals as delicacies. I can think of live seafood, monkey brain (with a living monkey, yes), off the top off my head
Now, even though I don't personally agree with eating the goldfish, I don't think he should be punished (at least not so severely) just because his ethics/beliefs differ from those of others
|
In terms of animal cruelty, this is almost as bad as the guy who bit a snake. (It's almost a year old I think, happened in california). It's horrible.
On the other hand, that is the most excessive charge I've ever seen. Totally unfair.
|
The high tech fishing boats should instead be sent to prison. Fish have no chance vs high tech and soon our oceans are empty.
Whoever sued the guy should go to prison instead for wasting peoples time.
Wake up people not only are silly amounts of animals killed for eating and other goods, but to top it it often involves cruel methods.
The meat you buy in a supermarket surely has seen a worse life and death than the fish.
Instead of him you should go after the meat industy but of course the big meat industry has money and you dont fuck with those guys.
I havent seen the video but if he just eats the fish he has dont the most normal thing in the world. If he made the fish suffer before eating it then he must go to jail.
|
On April 28 2012 06:42 Teejing wrote:
The high tech fishing boats should instead be sent to prison. Fish have no chance vs high tech and soon our oceans are empty.
Whoever sued the guy should go to prison instead for wasting peoples time.
Wake up people not only are silly amounts of animals killed for eating and other goods, but to top it it often involves cruel methods.
The meat you buy in a supermarket surely has seen a worse life and death than the fish.
Instead of him you should go after the meat industy but of course the big meat industry has money and you dont fuck with those guys.
I havent seen the video but if he just eats the fish he has dont the most normal thing in the world. If he made the fish suffer before eating it then he must go to jail.
Out of curiosity, why are you and other people with the same statements incapable of making a distinction between "he did it for the sake of gaining publicity" and "he did it to eat it and tried to minimize suffering"?
How is putting a live goldfish in your mouth and starting to chew it NOT causing him suffering?
|
On April 28 2012 06:18 JerKy wrote:
I understand why people argue both sides, but you have to understand... there are cultures out there that eat live animals as delicacies. I can think of live seafood, monkey brain (with a living monkey, yes), off the top off my head
Now, even though I don't personally agree with eating the goldfish, I don't think he should be punished (at least not so severely) just because his ethics/beliefs differ from those of others
But that's not what it's about and that's why people are getting butthurt about it. They're having misplaced anger and misunderstanding what the issue is.
Ask yourself a very simple question:
Is it ok to kill something for the entertainment of others?
Ignore culture and the fact that he killed an animal or how he killed it, the issue is explicitly why he did it. Things die regularly for a myriad of reasons that are perfectly legitimate, but this isn't one of those cases. He killed it explicitly for the entertainment of others. It has absolutely nothing to do with his ethics / beliefs. People say that he shouldn't be punished yet have a tremendously difficult time actually saying the words "It is ok to kill something for fun." to themselves, which is what you have to believe to not think he deserves some kind of punishment. Either that or "Killing something for fun is not deserving of punishment" which to me is tantamount to the same thing.
|
On April 28 2012 04:12 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 04:09 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 28 2012 00:57 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 18:23 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 17:35 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 17:14 Arghmyliver wrote:
Dude. Stop insinuating that I like to watch things die, or that your opinion makes you morally superior. We have a good debate here and you are ruining it with your petty passive aggressive attitude. It's unbecoming man, please stop?
What food you eat is your own business.
Whether you eat it in an entertaining fashion is also your own business.
While he may have eaten it in an entertaining fasion and posted it on YouTube, his body still digested it. If he took the goldfish and tortuously killed it for no reason, that would be abuse. But he ate it. All of it. He didn't waste it and he benefited from the nutrients in that fish. For that day, and maybe only that day, his diet consisted partially of goldfish. It was his intention to eat it - and it contributed to his overall food intake. His intention was NOT to inhumanely kill it for entertainment purposes. His premeditated intention was to consume it for entertainment purposes. Eating food for entertainment is NOT illegal. Perhaps gluttonous, but not illegal.
Buying and consuming pets from the pet store is one thing. Buying and consuming food - sold as food - from the pet store is another.
No. I'm not insinuating that you like to watch things die, or that my opinion is morally superior, it's just that that is a natural consequence of arguing against what I'm arguing and there's no real way around that. I believe that my opinion is, in fact, morally superior and objectively superior (or I wouldn't be arguing it)--I don't believe however that you like to watch things die. So now there is no insinuation, it's just stated. His intention was to consume it for entertainment purposes, yes, but in this case consumption results in death, he killed it by eating it. It's logically equivalent to saying that, 'His intention was to kill it by eating it for entertainment purposes' and I am diametrically opposed to that kind of behavior. He absolutely could have killed it humanely beforehand, but he actively and consciously chose not to in attempt to increase the shock value of the situation. He even went as far as lying about it being his own pet to even further increase the shock value. It was so thoroughly intended to be a spectacle and nothing more, it was killing an animal in public for shock value. And that's wrong. I think we have two opposing viewpoints where you seem to think that your perceived moral superiority renders you completely infallible. Let me know how that God-complex works out for you. Jaded opinion? Yes, clearly I'm the one with a jaded opinion on the matter, what with all the talk about how things could be handled better and that you don't have to make a mockery of killing something. It has nothing to do with a god-complex or infallibility it's about you saying that it's fucking ok to kill something for the enjoyment of others and that it doesn't matter because it's a fucking goldfish and you're telling me I have a god-complex? Because I would rather not weigh in on "What we are allowed to kill on camera for people's enjoyment"? I am sorry my jaded opinion, from all that harsh not-killing-things I do on the daily, is clouding my rational judgment on the issue. I mean, are you for real? All I'm saying is he didn't have to kill the thing on camera and the show could have been perfectly fine had he killed it off camera before eating it. I'm sorry my awfully cynical opinion on life is unreasonable to you. I'm sorry you don't agree, I don't know, I thought it was a pretty reasonable opinion. The fact that this guy went far out of his way to make a showing of him killing something, that he purposely attempted to pull on some strings of people by claiming it was his pet, is wrong. And your stance is that not only should this happen, but that that kind of behavior is correct and in no way weird or wrong. Are you familiar with what the word jaded actually means? Dude. Again I said none of those things. I said that I don't think this qualifies as illegal in this circumstance. I would never eat, or condone eating, goldfish alive. But this guy can if he wants to. And I'll repeat myself (again, for the second time as anticipated). It's not the fact that he did, it's why he did it. And that's the bottom line. That's why it's illegal. Because it actually is, illegal. That's why he's getting punished for it. Did you really just post twice instead of editing your first post, quoting the exact same thing? And yes, you did. In fact, you just did: "But this guy can if he wants to" is tantamount to saying it's ok to kill something for the enjoyment of others. That's what happened, he killed an animal for the enjoyment of others, and you're explicitly saying that that is ok. You've also stated that it doesn't matter because it's a goldfish that is supposed to be eaten anyways. Page 30. It's also highly contradictory to state that you don't condone the act and then literally in the next sentence state that you agree he should be allowed to do the act that you just said that you don't condone. You either don't condone it and disapprove of the action, or you do condone it and approve of the action, or are ambivalent about the topic all together. And even then, it's much less about the action and more about why he did it. My point of view is fairly simple, when you generalize the event, he killed an <animal> for public entertainment, it doesn't matter what that <animal> is, it's wrong. Your defense thus far can be boiled down to, "But come on man, it's just a goldfish, who cares?" He could have done this with a rabbit that he caught himself in the wild, it'd still be wrong to kill it and eat it for public entertainment.
No dude - you can't boil down my argument to something I am not arguing. If I wanted to say "But come on man, it's just a goldfish, who cares?" I would have. But I didn't.
There is a difference between something being morally reprehensible and something being legally reprehensible. Therefore - saying that I don't necessarily condone the act, but that I don't think he is at fault legally is not contradictory.
I said that I don't necessarily condone eating live feeder goldfish, but that this guy can if he wants to. I did not say that I think its ok to kill things for the enjoyment of others.
My defense thus far could be summarized as -
The goldfish would have been eaten no matter what. Whether this is acceptable or a major breach of goldfish rights is not for me to say. In my opinion, if you really wanted to prevent this from happening, you wouldn't sell goldfish as food. If you sell goldfish as food - you have to expect them to be eaten. If you are expecting the goldfish to be eaten, you also have to expect them to be killed.
My argument has little to do with what kind of animal it is - but rather for what purpose the animal was being sold.
It would be different if he was just killing fish on his YouTube channel, but he ate a goldfish that was sold to be eaten. In order to be in violation of the laws posted - he would have to be killing a pet (something he was charged with taking care of). When the pet shop owner sold him the goldfish - he was doing so with the full knowledge and understanding that it would be killed and eaten.
|
On April 28 2012 05:35 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 05:20 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 05:10 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 05:03 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:59 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:55 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:32 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:24 Myles wrote:
What's the difference between this and sport fishing? The catch and release policy? If you're catching it to eat it, cool, if you're catching it to sell to be eaten, cool, if you're catching it so that you can just kill it, that should strike you as something weird. Does it matter that they're a fish, I mean wouldn't it be weird if you went out and caught a squirrel just so you could kill it? If you're alluding to the fact that people actually do practice catching various animals for the explicit purpose of killing them for the sake of killing them, yes, I'm aware that happens, and yes, it's kind of a fucked up practice. I generally lean more towards the "You could also just not kill it" club in that regard. You know, kind of like pest control services who have been becoming increasingly more humane in their removal of pests, always trying to opt to remove problems without violence because you can.. I'm also not trying to state that this guy is some kind of serial fish killer, I'm just explaining that in this specific scenario this is why he was arrested or whatever. It would have been the same result if he had a show where he caught a squirrel and bit it's head off. In fact if it was a squirrel I think the only two sides would be, That's really fucked up and He should go to jail. People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act. My point is that when you catch a fish you cause it way more pain then when you 'eat it alive'. Catching a fish entails putting a hook through it's mouth(or guts if they swallow it) and then either cutting its head off or letting it slowly suffocate. Why you do this seems irreverent to me as you should be killing things as humanely as possible regardless of why you do it. And by eating the fish in the manner he did he instantly killed it as soon as he bite down. There is literally no more humane way to kill a fish despite whatever reason he did it for. Right, so was I not clear enough in my previous posts or? .. I mean, I thought "it's not how he killed it, it's why" was a clear enough message, so ending a post trying to refute that with "despite whatever reason he did it for" seems like not so great of a response given that I've already acknowledge (3 times now going on 4!) that it's not the fact that he did it, or how he did it, it's why he did it that matters here. I even explicitly stated in the post you just quoted, "People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act." You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say. What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food. You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause. I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat. Eh, I'm not so sure many fisherman care about the well being of the fish they catch. Though, I will agree that they don't do it so they can kill the fish(usually, but there is stuff like shark fishing). And there are tons of commercial fisherman who make a lot of money by causing fish lots of pain. I guess in the end its a philosophical difference on the ends vs the means. I'm talking about recreational fishers. People who aren't recreational fishing are fishing for profit in some way. But this is fairly irrelevant to the topic of this discussion. This topic is about whether it is alright to publicly kill something for entertainment. When I say entertainment I'm speaking about a crowd and money being involved. I didn't get to see his viewing numbers but I assume he crossed the threshold (which is surprisingly little) in which he was making a profit. People were misinterpreting what I meant by entertainment previously, taking it to mean entertainment for himself, which isn't the case. If he took any joy in what he did he's likely disturbed anyways.
I think you're grasping at straws here. Fishing is an established "sport". They have TV shows dedicated to fishing for entertainment; they win big money prizes as well. This guys' hobby is eating weird stuff. I doubt the amount of money he gets from YT ads is very much at all.
A few more points:
-He decapitated the fish very quickly, it felt little to no pain.
-Fish are at the bottom of the food chain.
-This guy digested the fish, he received sustenance from it.
|
On April 29 2012 04:32 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 05:35 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 05:20 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 05:10 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 05:03 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:59 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:55 Myles wrote:On April 28 2012 04:32 Kich wrote:On April 28 2012 04:24 Myles wrote:
What's the difference between this and sport fishing? The catch and release policy? If you're catching it to eat it, cool, if you're catching it to sell to be eaten, cool, if you're catching it so that you can just kill it, that should strike you as something weird. Does it matter that they're a fish, I mean wouldn't it be weird if you went out and caught a squirrel just so you could kill it? If you're alluding to the fact that people actually do practice catching various animals for the explicit purpose of killing them for the sake of killing them, yes, I'm aware that happens, and yes, it's kind of a fucked up practice. I generally lean more towards the "You could also just not kill it" club in that regard. You know, kind of like pest control services who have been becoming increasingly more humane in their removal of pests, always trying to opt to remove problems without violence because you can.. I'm also not trying to state that this guy is some kind of serial fish killer, I'm just explaining that in this specific scenario this is why he was arrested or whatever. It would have been the same result if he had a show where he caught a squirrel and bit it's head off. In fact if it was a squirrel I think the only two sides would be, That's really fucked up and He should go to jail. People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act. My point is that when you catch a fish you cause it way more pain then when you 'eat it alive'. Catching a fish entails putting a hook through it's mouth(or guts if they swallow it) and then either cutting its head off or letting it slowly suffocate. Why you do this seems irreverent to me as you should be killing things as humanely as possible regardless of why you do it. And by eating the fish in the manner he did he instantly killed it as soon as he bite down. There is literally no more humane way to kill a fish despite whatever reason he did it for. Right, so was I not clear enough in my previous posts or? .. I mean, I thought "it's not how he killed it, it's why" was a clear enough message, so ending a post trying to refute that with "despite whatever reason he did it for" seems like not so great of a response given that I've already acknowledge (3 times now going on 4!) that it's not the fact that he did it, or how he did it, it's why he did it that matters here. I even explicitly stated in the post you just quoted, "People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act." You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say. What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food. You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause. I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat. Eh, I'm not so sure many fisherman care about the well being of the fish they catch. Though, I will agree that they don't do it so they can kill the fish(usually, but there is stuff like shark fishing). And there are tons of commercial fisherman who make a lot of money by causing fish lots of pain. I guess in the end its a philosophical difference on the ends vs the means. I'm talking about recreational fishers. People who aren't recreational fishing are fishing for profit in some way. But this is fairly irrelevant to the topic of this discussion. This topic is about whether it is alright to publicly kill something for entertainment. When I say entertainment I'm speaking about a crowd and money being involved. I didn't get to see his viewing numbers but I assume he crossed the threshold (which is surprisingly little) in which he was making a profit. People were misinterpreting what I meant by entertainment previously, taking it to mean entertainment for himself, which isn't the case. If he took any joy in what he did he's likely disturbed anyways. I think you're grasping at straws here. Fishing is an established "sport". They have TV shows dedicated to fishing for entertainment; they win big money prizes as well. This guys' hobby is eating weird stuff. I doubt the amount of money he gets from YT ads is very much at all. A few more points: -He decapitated the fish very quickly, it felt little to no pain. -Fish are at the bottom of the food chain. -This guy digested the fish, he received sustenance from it.
Good points.
|
This is just crazy since the fish you buy in the store goes through much more agony than that goldfish did. Stuck in a fishingnet for hours. Do you think they break the neck of or decapatiates all the thousands of fish they get onto the fishing boats?
I do however consider fish being the animal i sympathise the least with except for insects and spiders, since they seem to have close to no intellect/emotions/memory.
|
I don't think the law is very clear on how animal cruelty is defined. I don't think it's fair to charge him when he wasn't aware of the potential consequences of this seemingly harmless act. A friend of mine ate a live goldfish as a stunt to get elected onto student council and he didn't hear from the authorities.
If he killed it by biting it (rather than eating it whole), how is this any different than killing a bass with a knife. When you fish for food, you will typically cut off the fish's head while it is still alive. Fishing is a pretty common activity and I don't hear anybody getting arrested for that.
Goldfish are also known as "feeder fish" by people who own bigger fish. If you own eels, you may buy goldfish and feed them (alive) to eels. I don't understand how this is any different from the goldfish's perspective than being eaten by a human.
Animal cruelty is a very serious issue, but I think this is a major distraction from real instances of animal cruelty. Goldfish are not intelligent creatures, unlike dogs or cows. Horses are often killed using slaughterhouse machinery made for cows. This causes the bolt to miss the brain if the horse moves its head and the horse lives until it bleeds out or is manually put down. I find the Youtube videos to be very distasteful, but I don't issue any real animal cruelty issues in them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
